I find Nielsen and Molich’s concept of heuristic evaluation really useful because it provides a structured, expert-driven way to catch usability issues early without needing full user testing. I agree with the reading that this method can often reveal similar breakdowns as user tests, which makes it both efficient and cost-effective. However, I also think it’s important to remember that heuristic evaluation relies on the evaluator’s experience—so while it limits some kinds of bias, it can’t fully replace real user feedback, which captures the emotional and contextual aspects of interaction.

I agree that observation, as an empirical method, is valuable because it helps remove personal bias and ensures that findings are grounded in what users actually do, not just what experts think they will do. I find this especially useful in design research, where assumptions about user behavior can easily lead to misleading conclusions. However, I also think that relying solely on observation can sometimes miss the why behind users’ actions—something that critical or interpretive methods can better capture. This reading helped me realize that a balance between empirical and critical approaches can provide both objectivity and depth in understanding user experiences.

I agree that these implicit inputs, like location tracking and personalized history, create serious ethical concerns because the consequences aren’t evenly distributed across all users. For someone with stable circumstances and no threats to their safety, personalized search may feel convenient and harmless. But for someone vulnerable, like a stalking victim or a person relying on anonymity for protection, the same data trail becomes a map for harm. I find this perspective really useful because it makes me rethink digital design as not only about convenience but about protecting the worst-case scenario user. Google may not intend to create danger, yet the system can accidentally amplify risk for people who are already at risk. It reminds me that “smart” features aren’t universally smart — sometimes they’re sharp objects that require careful safety guards.

I really agree with the reading’s point that prototyping isn’t just about building something; it’s about deciding what you need to build to learn the right thing at the right moment. That reminder shifts my perspective, because I used to think of prototypes as just early versions of the final product, but now I see them as experiments designed to answer specific questions. I think it's important to balance how much you don’t know with how much you can afford to discover.

I completely agree that the choice between open-ended and closed-ended questions can significantly impact how people respond and the kind of data we collect. Open-ended questions allow for deeper insights and personal perspectives, but they can be harder to analyze. Closed-ended questions, on the other hand, are easier to compare and quantify but might limit the range of responses. I find this distinction really useful because it reminds me that the type of question I choose should match my research goals—whether I’m trying to explore new ideas or measure specific patterns.

I agree that performing a competitive analysis early in the UX design process is essential because it helps set a clear foundation for understanding what already exists in the market and how to design something that truly stands out. I find it especially useful that the reading emphasizes making this research iterative—since user needs and competitors’ offerings are always changing, it’s important to continuously update insights rather than treat it as a one-time task. This perspective reminds me that good design doesn’t happen in isolation; it’s built on awareness of what others are doing and a constant effort to adapt and improve.

I really agree with this idea that critique should be two-way. In many classroom or work settings, feedback feels one-sided — someone tells you what’s wrong, and you just listen. But when designers explain their rationale, it opens up a more meaningful conversation. I found Ko’s framing useful because it reminds me that critique is about growth and understanding, not just judgment. It changes my perspective on feedback — instead of feeling defensive, I can see it as a collaborative dialogue to refine ideas together.

I think this critique of human-centered design is very valid. While HCD has helped make products and services more usable, it sometimes treats people as isolated users rather than participants in a much larger ecosystem. However, no design can fully involve 100% of the people, so it’s understandable that designers focus on specific groups or needs. I think the challenge is finding a balance between addressing individual users and considering the broader systems that shape their experiences. This perspective makes me think more critically about how design decisions can unintentionally impact other parts of the system, even when the intention is to help people.

I think the idea of using personas is really interesting because it helps designers focus on real human needs rather than just abstract ideas. At the same time, I agree with the critique that personas can sometimes feel too fictional or stereotypical, and if they aren’t grounded in actual research, they might misrepresent the people you’re designing for. This reading makes me realize that while personas are useful tools for organizing knowledge about users, they should always be supported by real conversations and evidence from the community.

I really agree with the point that if you haven’t talked to the people you’re designing for, you can’t truly understand their problems. Too often designers make assumptions about what users need, and this can lead to solutions that don’t actually help or even create new problems. This reading reminded me that design isn’t just about creativity or technical skill—it’s also about empathy, listening, and real engagement with the people you want to serve. It changes my perspective by showing me that good design requires not just observation, but active communication with users.

I agree with the idea of human-centered design because nowadays everything is designed to make people's lives easier. It makes sense to focus on people’s needs first, since technology and design only matter if they improve the way we live and interact. This perspective also changes how I think about design—it’s not just about making something look good, but about creating solutions that actually fit into people’s daily lives.

I totally agree with the idea that design is a form of problem solving that everyone participates in. I really relate to the example of rearranging a room because I just moved into a new place and had to rearrange everything—the bed, the desk—and it felt like I was doing interior design. This made me realize that even small decisions in daily life involve creativity and problem-solving.